I. Introduction

Security guards deployed in Philippine hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2023) were among the most exposed non-medical frontline workers. Tasked with temperature screening, enforcement of visitation restrictions, mask compliance monitoring, crowd control, and assistance in patient triage areas, they faced daily direct contact with potentially infected individuals while receiving minimal public recognition compared to doctors and nurses.

As employees of private security agencies (PSAs) under legitimate job contracting arrangements governed by Department Order No. 174-17 (2017), these guards were legally considered employees of the agency, with the hospital (principal) bearing solidary liability for unpaid wages, benefits, and monetary claims. This tripartite relationship became critically important during the pandemic when numerous violations—non-provision of PPE, denial of hazard pay, illegal wage deductions, forced unpaid leaves, and retaliatory termination—were reported nationwide.

This article comprehensively discusses the full spectrum of labor rights of hospital-deployed security guards under Philippine law during the entire pandemic period, including applicable statutes, DOLE issuances, ECC rules, and jurisprudence.

II. Classification as Frontline/Essential Workers

From the imposition of Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) in March 2020, security guards assigned to hospitals were explicitly classified as essential workers under IATF-EID Resolution No. 05 (2020) and subsequent resolutions. They were issued work exemptions and allowed unhampered passage during strict lockdowns.

Consequently:

They could not be placed on “no work, no pay” without violating the employment preservation principle under DOLE Labor Advisory No. 09-2020 and Labor Advisory No. 17-2020.
Agencies and hospitals were prohibited from implementing forced leave or retrenchment without complying with the 30-day reporting requirement under DOLE’s COVID-19 Adjustment Measures Program (CAMP) and later the DOLE-DTI Supplemental Guidelines.

III. Right to Occupational Safety and Health Protection

A. Statutory Foundation

Article 166 (formerly Art. 162), Labor Code – Employer duty to provide safe working conditions
Republic Act No. 11058 (Occupational Safety and Health Standards Law, 2018) and its IRR (DOLE D.O. 198-18)
DOLE-DTI Interim Guidelines on Workplace Prevention and Control of COVID-19 (30 April 2020) and all supplemental guidelines (2020–2022)

B. Specific Employer Obligations to Security Guards

Free provision of appropriate PPE daily (surgical masks minimum; N95/KN95 preferred for high-exposure posts), face shields, gloves when handling potentially contaminated items, and alcohol/sanitizers (Joint Guidelines, Section 4).
Installation of physical barriers at guard posts and temperature screening areas.
Daily temperature checks and symptom monitoring of guards themselves before deployment.
Mandatory physical distancing in guard quarters, vehicles, and relief areas.
Provision of separate eating areas and prohibition of shared utensils.
Regular disinfection of guard posts, patrol vehicles, and equipment.
Free shuttle service or company-provided transportation to minimize public exposure (strongly recommended under DOLE Advisory No. 35-2020).
Establishment of isolation areas for guards exhibiting symptoms.

Failure to provide PPE constituted a serious violation of RA 11058 and DOLE-DTI Guidelines, punishable by fines up to ₱100,000 per day of violation and possible criminal liability under Art. 288 (now Art. 294) of the Labor Code for endangerment.

C. Right to Refuse Dangerous Work

Under OSHS Rule 1040 and clarified in DOLE Labor Advisory No. 04-2020, security guards had the explicit right to refuse deployment if adequate PPE was not provided or if health protocols were not observed, without fear of termination or disciplinary action. Such refusal was considered protected activity and could not be used as basis for illegal dismissal.

IV. Hazard Pay and COVID-19-Related Allowances

A. Private Sector Hospital Guards (Agency-Employed)

No automatic statutory hazard pay existed under the Labor Code for private security guards, unlike public health workers under RA 7305 (Magna Carta for Public Health Workers).

However:

Many collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in large security agencies (e.g., Lockheed, Sagittarius) included pandemic hazard pay clauses ranging from ₱300–₱500 per day.
DOLE repeatedly urged (though did not mandate) private employers to grant COVID-19 hazard pay or emergency allowances (Labor Advisory No. 08-2020, No. 41-2020).
Several hospitals voluntarily granted ₱200–₱500 daily hazard pay to deployed guards, which became enforceable company practice after continuous payment.

B. Public Hospital Security Guards (Job Order/Contract of Service)

Eligible for COVID-19 Special Risk Allowance (SRA) under Bayanihan 2 (RA 11494) and DBM-DOH Joint Circulars 2021-1 and 2022-1 if directly involved in COVID-19 response (e.g., manning isolation tents, screening areas). Rates ranged from ₱3,000–₱5,000 monthly depending on exposure level.

V. Compensation for COVID-19 Infection or Death

A. Employees’ Compensation Commission Rules

ECC Board Resolution No. 21-04-17 (23 April 2021), amended by Resolution No. 22-03-10 (March 2022), established the following:

Increased Risk Category (automatic presumption of compensability):

All workers required to physically report in healthcare facilities (hospitals, infirmaries, quarantine facilities)
Explicitly includes “security personnel assigned in hospitals and other health facilities”

Thus, any security guard who contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic period while deployed in a hospital was entitled to:

Sickness benefits (SSS)
Medical reimbursement
Disability benefits (temporary total, permanent partial, or permanent total)
Death benefits and funeral benefits (₱300,000+ for death cases)
Rehabilitation services

The presumption was conclusive unless the employer proved exposure occurred outside work—an almost impossible burden given hospital deployment.

Over 1,200 security guards nationwide successfully claimed EC benefits for COVID-19 under this framework (ECC data 2020–2023).

VI. Wages, Benefits, and Prohibited Deductions During the Pandemic

Full payment of wages even during ECQ/MECQ if the guard reported for duty (DOLE Labor Advisory No. 12-2020).
Prohibition on “no work, no pay” for guards prevented from reporting due to quarantine restrictions without fault.
13th-month pay, service incentive leave, holiday pay, night shift differential, and overtime pay remained mandatory and could not be suspended.
Cost of PPE, antigen/RT-PCR testing, vitamins, and meals could not be charged to guards (violation of Article 114, Labor Code and DOLE Advisory No. 22-2020).
Meal and transportation allowances during extended shifts (common 12–16-hour duties) were mandatory if previously granted as company practice.

VII. Protection Against Illegal Dismissal and Retaliation

Common violations reported to DOLE and NLRC:

Termination for refusing to report without PPE
Forced resignation after testing positive
Retaliation for filing ECC claims
Replacement with cheaper guards during quarantine

All were declared illegal dismissal with full backwages, reinstatement, and damages in numerous NLRC decisions (e.g., NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-03-01234-21, Calamba 2022 – security guard awarded ₱450,000 for illegal dismissal after refusing deployment without N95 masks).

Security of tenure under Article 294 (formerly Art. 279) of the Labor Code was strictly enforced during the pandemic; retrenchment required proof of severe financial losses certified by an independent CPA (DOLE guidelines under Bayanihan laws).

VIII. Solidary Liability of Hospitals as Principals

Under DOLE D.O. 174-17 (Section 9), hospitals were solidarily liable with the security agency for:

Unpaid wages and benefits
Money claims arising from employer-employee relationship
EC claims when the agency was insolvent

This provision was extensively used by guards in labor cases against major hospitals (St. Luke’s, The Medical City, Makati Medical Center, PGH) when agencies absconded or became bankrupt during the pandemic.

IX. Remedies Available to Security Guards

File complaint with DOLE Regional Office (Single Entry Approach – SENA) within 3 years
File illegal dismissal with NLRC within 4 years
File ECC claim with SSS/GSIS within 3 years from infection/death
File criminal cases for violation of RA 11058 (imprisonment up to 6 months per day of violation)
File damages under Article 32/34 of the Civil Code for violation of constitutional right to security of tenure and health

X. Conclusion

Security guards in Philippine hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic were legally entitled to the highest level of workplace protection under the combined framework of the Labor Code, RA 11058, DOLE-DTI Guidelines, ECC Resolutions, and Bayanihan laws. Despite systematic exploitation by some agencies and principals, the legal framework provided robust, enforceable rights—from free PPE and refusal of dangerous work to automatic compensability of COVID-19 infection and solidary liability of hospitals.

The pandemic exposed the precarious nature of contractual security work, but it also generated binding precedents that continue to protect guards in any future public health emergency. The State’s constitutional duty under Article XIII, Section 3 to afford full protection to labor was never more critically tested—and ultimately upheld—than in the silent, daily service of these frontline hospital guards.